×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

When DLC Goes Wrong

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the horse-armor dept.

The Almighty Buck 261

kube00 writes "Poorly done downloadable content is one of a gamer's worst nightmares right now. Where a publisher stands to make some money, gamers get screwed. Whether it's the overpriced extra maps/costumes DLC, on-the-disc-at-launch DLC, or DLC that is nothing more than a remake of other content, no game is safe from bad DLC. That includes Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock 2, Uncharted 2 and a host of many other popular games. Is there a chance to fix this system?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

261 comments

Yes! (5, Insightful)

zcomuto (1700174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193970)

When people realise this, and stop buying DLC.

Re:Yes! (3, Insightful)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193998)

Some DLC is great. The Undead Nightmare DLC for Red Dead was practically an entirely new game, and both the Gay Tony & whatever the biker one was called where both great content add ons for Grand theft auto.

Re:Yes! (4, Informative)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194022)

Gay Tony is what you call an expansion pack. It is a completely new campaign, rather than a package of costumes and multiplayer maps. It also provided more gameplay time as a cheap expansion than Medal of Honor or CoD:BO in their full $60 campaign splendor.

Re:Yes! (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194036)

DLC can be good for experimental game ideas. Most of the fallout 3 DLC took place in different settings than the main game, there were some interesting ideas in there. Some were utter failures, mothership zeta was terrible. On the other hand, point lookout was great, and most of my favorite fallout 3 experiences were from that.

Obsidian loses points though for making the end of the game contained in a DLC. I don't know if they had the original ending and decided they could do better (which would be more legitimate) or if they decided they'd be losing money to put all that content in one game (less respectable) or if they decided they could squeeze more out of us by breaking it up (woudn't put it past them).

However it happened, it was a good game and I didn't think twice about buying New Vegas.

Re:Yes! (5, Informative)

ratinox (582104) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194096)

Obsidian loses points though for making the end of the game contained in a DLC. I don't know if they had the original ending and decided they could do better (which would be more legitimate) or if they decided they'd be losing money to put all that content in one game (less respectable) or if they decided they could squeeze more out of us by breaking it up (woudn't put it past them).

However it happened, it was a good game and I didn't think twice about buying New Vegas.

Are you referring to the Fallout 3 Broken Steel DLC, which raised the level cap to 30 and allowed the game to continue past the original cutscene-to-menu ending once the main plotline had been completed? If so, I think you meant "Bethesda", as Obsidian are only responsible for developing New Vegas.

As far as I can recall, the decision to expand the "endgame" in Broken Steel came about as a result of request from fans who wanted to continue playing past the conclusion of the story. I seem to remember some BethSoft employee being quoted as saying they never anticipated that people would enjoy their game that much...

Re:Yes! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194250)

I seem to remember some BethSoft employee being quoted as saying they never anticipated that people would enjoy their game that much...

Which sounds weak. After all, Fallout 2 allowed it - why shouldn't the fans expect the same of the new game?

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194500)

They probably didn't expect people to enjoy it so much because of the utter insanity that was then reaction of a large number of the original fallout fans. It was worse than Star Wars fans reactions to THe Phantom Menace and UK students reactions to higher University fees.

To paraphrase an old joke: If Hitler, Bin Laden and an original fallout game fan where standing in front of me and I had a gun with two bullets I'd shoot the fallout fan twice to make sure. Probably in the face.

For the record I have played all the fallout games multiple time buy purchased them all on release day but I no longer consider myself a fallout fan as I do not wish to be associated with the fan base.

Re:Yes! (2, Interesting)

ratinox (582104) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194766)

I don't know about weak; I'd maybe go for "naive", especially since they were producing a very sandbox-y game. However, it's worth mentioning that it was a completely different development studio, so it's hardly surprising that their design goals would be different. Personally, I think it was laudable of them to actually listen to their fans and provide the functionality they asked for, rather than simply ignoring them as so many studios seem to.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194820)

Mothership Zeta was the best.

Re:Yes! (3, Insightful)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194060)

Considering how well Zynga is doing selling virtual items in games like Farmville, Mafia Wars I suspect that we will only see this trend grow.

Re:Yes! (1)

conares (1045290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194408)

When people realise this, and stop buying DLC.

I wonder if this whole vote with your wallet even works anymore.... People not buying the DLC and the fat guys in suits are gonna think there was too much content included in the shipped game to begin with. What we need most of all I think is a modchip for the PS3, the game houses have had a free ride for far to long. Piracy is the only real competition these days.

Fuck you, developers. (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193974)

If I pay for a game, it damn better be a COMPLETE game. But these days, they sell incomplete games now and the missing parts later. DLC is nothing but a scam.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194012)

I disagree with that broad statement. If I'm interested in the DLC, I probably felt like the game itself had good value. If I didn't thoroughly enjoy a game, I'm not going to be paying them any more money. What's a "complete" game anyway? I'd rather play a good short game than a tedious long one.

Furthermore, if DLC comes out months after a game is released, it indicates the devs didn't just decide to withhold content for a premium. And I can understand being in a situation like "We have this interesting side story to develop, but that would push back the release date a few months." I'd rather have that option to extend the game if I'm enjoying it.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194074)

Yeah, you pretty much summed up my feelings better than my long-winded response below.

Regarding "what is a 'complete' game?", though. I'd say, a game that at least has a full story arc. Incomplete and using DLC for money grubbing would be something like releasing the first game as, half the story, and then having to buy DLC to finish that story. i.e. it wouldn't be an extension of the game; it would be building to the completion of the game.

Though not quite DLC, this is kind of how I look at Valve with the HL2 episodes. Episodic content is annoying like that when you have to wait so long to get to the next chapter. Even more so when you are really enjoying the story. (and I love the HL2 story)

Like I said in my comment below, "Borderlands" *might* feel kind of like an incomplete game due to its weak story, BUT it's such a fun game that you do feel you got a complete game in the base game, and the DLC then extends and enhances, as DLC should.

Also, like I said in the post below, I have never bought an "incomplete" game in the sense of this post, and I never intend to.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

FoboldFKY (785255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194178)

Episodic content is annoying like that when you have to wait so long to get to the next chapter.

Really, that's only a problem if the company making the episodes isn't very good at it. Valve may have popularised the idea, but to be honest, they suck balls at it. They realised the "smaller" and "cheaper" parts well enough, but made a complete pig's breakfast of the "more frequent" part. I just don't think Valve as a studio is capable of doing episodes properly.

Rather, you should be looking at Telltale. Once they start a season, they release an episode once a month. I think they could improve by actually releasing on a predictable date as opposed to whenever so long as it's not next month yet.

It's not a problem with episodic games, it's a problem with Valve (to say nothing of whoever it was that was doing SiN Episodes).

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194458)

I thought it was Prince of Persia that popularised the idea. It's the first game I remember being released in episodes anyway. I've still not played any of them beyond the original, as I didn't like the idea of paying two times the cost of a normal full game to get all the parts, not to mention having to wait weeks/months in between each portion of the game.

Having said that I did buy the HD remake of the original, which definitely is a cash in of course..

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

njen (859685) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194484)

Episodic content is annoying like that when you have to wait so long to get to the next chapter.

I take it you don't read multi part novels then?

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194810)

Episodic content is annoying like that when you have to wait so long to get to the next chapter.

I take it you don't read multi part novels then?

I know I don't. For example: I love reading Tracy Hickman novels, but "dragonsbard Eventide" is an annoying distribution model. Give me the whole book and I'll give you my money. Oh sure, that's the way books used to be done back in the day when serials ruled the roost, but that's not what today's readers want. We want fast resolution of plot; a continual cliffhanger sucks big ones.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

Squeeself (729802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194164)

Yeah, I fully agree with you here. I don't buy DLC's except on the games that I enjoyed the most. In those cases, I want more, and the DLC provides. In other games I don't enjoy or play as much? Never bought a DLC. Just no interest. Been there, done that. DLC gives the gamer the choice of that extra content, and not, as you indicated, being a blocker in the production cycle.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194266)

I guess it comes down to the difference between DLC and expansion packs, that have been around forever. DLC gives me the feeling of being nickel and dimed, expansions doesn't. I might buy a some kind of "ultimate" edition when that hits the bargain bin though.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194420)

I'd rather play a good short game than a tedious long one.

Would you really pay 60 for Portal?

I'd rather pay for a good long game than a good short one.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (2, Interesting)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194052)

If I pay for a game, it damn better be a COMPLETE game. But these days, they sell incomplete games now and the missing parts later. DLC is nothing but a scam.

While I agree with this in principle, I have not yet bought a game that I felt the base-game was incomplete and the DLC felt like a money-grubbing scam. The closest was maybe Borderlands, mainly because the base game storyline was pretty weak. BUT, it was still a damn fun game, even only in the base game. The DLC enhances and extends the game and makes it significantly better, to the extent one might argue that the DLC should have just been part of the original, but I don't fault them too much for it. I think GearBox did alright with their compromise between putting out a game within a reasonable timeframe and putting out a game with all possible content (including stuff you may not have thought of or developed yet).

A lot of people hate on Bioshock 2, especially for PC after the recent no-DLC-for-PC debacle. For my part, I was very disappointed that Minerva's Den DLC was not coming for PC, mainly because the console users said it was quite good. But, I'd already felt I bought a complete game, so even with this, it was a case of missing out on truly EXTRA content. (And, apparently, they've decided to port Minerva's Den after all... someday)

And, as for DLC done right, one only has to look at Valve and everything they've done for TF2, L4D, and L4D2. And, they release it for free!

I agree that I hate the idea of a developer releasing an incomplete game and releasing the story piece by piece, and I WILL NOT buy such a game. I'm keeping my eye on Bioshock Infinite, and if it is anything like that or in any way heavily DLC based, I will skip it. I play games on my computer, and I'm not going to buy an incomplete game that also includes the risk of not being able to get the complete content. If a company does go the incomplete game, bit by bit route, then, assuming it does look like a really good game, I'll just wait for a GOTY edition that bundles all of the DLC and main game into one (and probably save a ton of money, too).

So, I hear you about wanting a complete game. I agree that DLC *can* be a scam. However, in my experience, DLC has been a good thing, for the most part (or, at least not a hindrance, in the case of BS2). And my money will only go towards supporting games which, if they must have DLC, do DLC right.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194080)

I was very disappointed that Minerva's Den DLC was not coming for PC... And, as for DLC done right, one only has to look at Valve and everything they've done for TF2, L4D, and L4D2. And, they release it for free!

Don't feel so bad, the free DLC was only free on the PC.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194152)

Don't feel so bad, the free DLC was only free on the PC.

Heh... oops. Sorry, I forgot that. ^^;;

However, isn't that more Microsoft's doing than Valve's doing? As I understand things now for the future, Valve would rather gamers not buy Portal 2 for Xbox if they want to get the best possible experience playing it, mainly because of Microsoft's limitations on DLC and patches and such. Valve could never do for TF2 on XBox what they've done for TF2 on PC, and the only reason for this is because Microsoft won't allow it.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194084)

Beautiful Katamari

It was a very short game, and the DLC was available from day1, completing the game. IIRC the original game was pretty low priced though, so instead of looking at it as being ripped off and getting nickel-and-dimes for the full game, you could say that they were offering a half-game for half price and you could buy the rest if you liked it.

I'm not sure, this is a big grey area. When am I not getting a full game I've paid for? When am I genuinely paying for extra content? How long *should* a game be?

Meh.

How long *should* a game be? (2, Insightful)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194706)

The correct reference point for how long a game should be is "Elite" on the BBC Micro by Braben et al.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194768)

There's DLC for that abomination?

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194072)

If I pay for a game, it damn better be a COMPLETE game. But these days, they sell incomplete games now and the missing parts later. DLC is nothing but a scam.

This, and yet not this.

DLC is a pretty good indicator that the publisher/developer is trying to screw you on content, if it's available on launch and the game is sold at full price.

There are however some developers that take a different approach where the original game is cheaper or free. Or where they release a small expansion several months later that has non-trivial content. However that's usually not the major publishers that do it but smaller studios. The majors are poisoning gamers' opinions on this matter.

DLC - like reviews - are a neutral tool. It can be good (new ways to sell games, make smaller expansions viable). DLC can also be abused (removing content from a full price game, creating "collector's" versions that cost extra, use as DRM/used-sales-prevention).

In the end it boils down to:
Its evilness is determined by the people who use it. Don't be an idiot, inform yourself and don't let yourself be ripped off.

Compare to boardgames and RPGs (3, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194502)

It's interesting to see how DLC is detested in computer games. In boardgames, expansions are popular and sell like wildfire, even if they tend to hurt the game experience (the basic game is often sleek and elegant, and expansions add lots of extra crap). But when people love a game, they love to pay to get even more of it. In RPGs it's even worse: a game is considered unsupported if there's not a regular schedule of source books and other stuff prying money out of our wallets. But here, more stuff usually gives the game more viability. The basic rules are nice to get you going, but we want more setting, more adventures, more careers/classes/abilities/spells, etc.

There's no real reason for it. There are lots of excellent games that have a complete and very enjoyable game in a single package, but the big sellers are the ones that keep releasing more and more stuff.

Why wouldn't this work for computer games? A big part of it is of course the way in which the game is released. If the basic game is broken and no fun at all, you'd be crazy to spend money to get more. Releasing an incomplete game and finishing it in DLC is a terrible idea. But releasing a small but fun complete game for a reasonable price, and then selling expansions and more content to those who love it so much they want to get more out of the game, that sounds like a very sensible approach. A company might make the last game you'll ever need, and live from continued support, expansions and new ideas for that game, and of course the new customers that are attracted to such a well-supported game. But yes, it needs to be about honest support, and not merely teasing some extra money out of your customers' wallet.

I think there's also a collector's itch at work with boardgames and RPGs, though. That's probably less the case with computer games, simply because they're not physical products.

Re:Compare to boardgames and RPGs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194630)

It's interesting to see how DLC is detested in computer games. In boardgames, expansions are popular and sell like wildfire,

The thing is, DLC for major titles often isn't an expansion. For big corporations it's solely a business decision to squeeze more money out of customers, not a feature to provide more interesting stuff to customers.

They poisoned the perception of DLC as bad because they use it to sell trivial/cosmetic junk, to charge extra for content ripped from the full version which is thus too short or as a means to discourage used sales.

DLC in this context has been introduced to the disadvantage of the consumer. The examples of "good" DLC don't get equal publicity because it's generally done for smaller games. So, it's no wonder so many people dislike it.

I think there's also a collector's itch at work with boardgames and RPGs, though. That's probably less the case with computer games, simply because they're not physical products.

Publishers are actively trying to prevent said collector's itch with restrictive DRM. You cannot actually buy a big title. You just rent it until they decide to turn their DRM servers off. You cannot collect what you cannot own.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (5, Insightful)

Squapper (787068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194172)

As a senior game developer, i can tell you that no game released nowadays is EVER complete. And trying to making a game complete is like trying to write all the digits of Pi. It cant be done, you just have to draw the line somewhere and say "this is good enough". We work until our employers pry our hands from the keyboards and force us work on a new project. Then we sneak back and work a little bit more on the old one either because we are ashamed of the quality or because we love the project. And we HAVE to move on to new projects, otherwise game development would not be economically feasible and there would be no AAA projects such as the ones mentioned in TFA.

And the point of doing minor DLC is not to make money from it directly. The point is to give a promise to the consumers that there will be DLC shortly, and make them hold on to their copies instead of reselling them, which would bring zero money to the publisher. This is not some theory of my own, it is what our publishers tell us when they are ordering us to do minor DLC. Why they charge so much for stuff that would have done it's job perfectly when released for free is beyond my understanding though.
It's funny that the example in TFA where the true strategy was most obvious, the DLC for Alan Wake, was where the author was most happy with the product...

Re:Fuck you, developers. (5, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194606)

As an ex senior game developer, you and I know very well that the problem is that we write two (or three or four) games for every one that's published. And we do this because most of the industry is institutionally incompetent.

Writers who can't make themselves understood; designers who say "give me an engine then I'll tell you what I really needed it to do"; engine devs who think they're writing the game; game devs who think they're writing the engine; artists who view resource limits as only applying to lesser talents; testers who are just frustrated designers; project managers who want to be producers; producers who want to be distributors; distributors who want to be writers, it's a massive dysfunctional clusterfuck from beginning to end. What amazes me is that anything actually gets released.

If we had the discipline (as an industry) to write just one game for every game released, they'd all be AAA, and turn at healthy profit at $30 retail.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194608)

Why they charge so much for stuff that would have done it's job perfectly when released for free is beyond my understanding though.

to earn money? They probably figure charging a few bucks isnt going to keep lots of people from getting it, and perhaps even that a non-free price adds an air of legitimacy and value to it. Also, gamers might be more inclined to try and actually enjoy the DLC when they spent money on it. If i download a level for game XYZ for free, and i hate the first five minutes, i will discard it. If i paid 5 bucks for it, i will give it about an hour to win me over before i toss it aside.

Mostly though, i think money is the reason, if they release loads of trinkets (free cars/guns/tracks/levels/team-jerseys), at some point the share holders will start asking questions, and when their money is involved, they can be a bitch to convince.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194652)

I call bullshit on this:

"game development would not be economically feasible"

Games ship now without media, have pre-release/ pre-order sales, DLC, movie and comic tie ins, merchandising etc... and the AAA games initial sales now generate more profit than AAA movies do, at less cost.

Someone is taking more than their fair share of the pie.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194224)

The problem is "DLC available at the start" screams "incomplete game" or "no QA testing was done on the shipping version"

Here's what's generally good:
1. DLC that expands the game to bridge it to the next chapter. It may take 2 years for another game, but they can put out a DLC bridge every 2-4 months. Altogether the player should pay no less than they would for the full game (eg 59.99) If content is released this way, as an incomplete game, then the beginning of the game should be cheaper, (eg 19.99) and the next 4 parts at 9.99 to complete the game. When the game is finally complete, re-release the game as a full version at the 59.99 price and release the next game in the same time span as the bridge episodes came out. What is bad: locking out the endgame behind DLC.
2. DLC is a solution to piracy problems. They can release the first "part" of the game for 19.99 or allow it to be pirated en-masse, but the DLC can only be downloaded and played by the original purchaser. Someone who borrows, rents or steals the game can still install it, but to play rest of the game it must be downloaded as DLC. When the game is no longer new, the complete game with all parts can be a digital-download-only purchase.
3. DLC can patch over game balance issues with the release of new episodes.

Where it's bad, evil:
1. DLC only unlocks costumes, props or maps that are already in the game. This is a common tactic employed previously by Microsoft and other business applications where a serial number was needed to unlock a cheaper edition of software into the more expensive version, but the software is otherwise identical. This should never have been considered a good idea, and anyone game that does this (including MMORPG's) are just robbing the player. It's like buying a car, but you can only choose from the base factory radio model (eg AM radio), and in order to get the CD player, or XM radio, you must pay an additional 2000$ for them to pry off the piece of plastic covering the controls, because it was there all along.
2. DLC is worthless content. Any part of the game that was optional, and remains optional after install. This is again, usually just costumes, weapons, and maps, but there is no bearing on the game for it's use (except maybe in a multiplayer environment.) In a single player game, these are insulting. Car analogy again, it's like buying stickers that you put on the windshield or bumper, but otherwise don't do anything to improve the car.
3. DLC is subscription/renting the game. This is the end-game for DLC, when people will stop buying it. Instead of "owning" a game, it's "renting-licensed" like how the RIAA and MPAA push things, which means among other things, that few people will ever re-play a game, thus buying all other DLC a waste of money.

Most of the people you will see whining about DLC are those who can't pirate the full game, or those that give away their accounts to their friends (to get around not being able to install on more than one account) and their friends screw them over by either deinstalling the game, or getting them banned.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194732)

You had a very good post there except for this:

DLC is a solution to piracy problems. They can release the first "part" of the game for 19.99 or allow it to be pirated en-masse, but the DLC can only be downloaded and played by the original purchaser. Someone who borrows, rents or steals the game can still install it, but to play rest of the game it must be downloaded as DLC. When the game is no longer new, the complete game with all parts can be a digital-download-only purchase.

you equate piracy with the mere fact of lending, leasing or reselling. These are undeniable rights given by the first sale doctrine if you agree with ht fact that when you pay for a game you're buying it (be it digitally of a physical copy), thus your property, and I think you do agree :

3. DLC is subscription/renting the game. This is the end-game for DLC, when people will stop buying it. Instead of "owning" a game, it's "renting-licensed" like how the RIAA and MPAA push things, which means among other things, that few people will ever re-play a game, thus buying all other DLC a waste of money.

Re:Fuck you, developers. (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194268)

But where do you draw the line? Borderlands released extra content as DLC- some of it was mostly based on existing art assets such as the arena based content, but other DLC had a lot of new content- the zombie island release.

You could argue that both these should've been in the game at release, you could argue that the arena one should, or you can argue that both are worthwhile bits of additional content.

The problem is that some people will claim it should all have been included in the game, but then as the game was full of content in the first place - more than a lot of games - then what incentive would there be for developers to create that content in the first place? They'd already made enough for a complete retail release.

Assassins Creed 2 had DLC which covered a "missing strand" of the storyline, but the missing strand didn't effect the retail storyline- some would argue this is part the game so should be free, but again, AC2 was a far longer, far more detailed game than the vast majority of other games out there- should it really have been free?

A lot of calls for DLC to be part of the game seem to simply be people just wanting more free shit, a sense of entitlement to something despite much resources having to be invested in that content.

This isn't to say some DLC is completely unfair, but it's hard to filter out complaints that are valid from those that aren't, and with the line blurred and largely subjective as to what is acceptable as DLC and what isn't then it's not likely to get resolved any time soon. Worse, some of the most succesful DLC in history is MW2's map packs, yet 2 out of 4 maps or whatever are just maps from existing CoD games re-released, despite this it's succesful because people pay for it- if millions of people are buying that crap then what are we to expect? The article complains about just this sort of thing but it's not like content descriptions aren't accurate- it was stated from the outset what is included in DLC content packs like this yet still people pay for it.

I'd say DLC is often far from a scam, some DLC I've paid for has been well worth it, some of it not so. I think it's perfectly valid- The Orange Box on the 360 had HL2, Episode 1, Episode 2, TF2, and Portal - it would make sense that Episode 3 (if Valve ever release it) is DLC rather than a new release, I certainly don't need a new disc for it. I'd never have expected more from AC2 - I think I certainly got my money's worth from that game, so releasing the extra content as DLC was fine for me.

The real question has to be when you buy a game, "Does this game have enough content to justify purchase?", if yes, and DLC later comes out, you have to ask the same about the DLC. If it's no to either question yet you buy it anyway, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on to complain- it's your own fault, it's not like there isn't a ton of information out there about how much content each game or DLC pack actually has.

Change your attitude first (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193976)

Where a publisher stands to make some money, gamers get screwed.

Is there a chance to fix this system?

As long as you approach the world with the attitude that it owes you something, there is no chance to fix the system. You will always be disappointed and feel "screwed".

Re:Change your attitude first (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194078)

If I paid $50 for a(n allegedly) professionally-produced game, they sure as hell DO owe me something.

Re:Change your attitude first (4, Insightful)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194158)

You chose to give them your money. They *owe you nothing* other than what you could access out of the box. Unless you're paying a monthly fee, you have no entitlement to anything beyond that. If you are paying a monthly fee and the devs aren't performing as you think they should *stop paying them*.

Re:Change your attitude first (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194734)

They implicitly promised a full game for that money, and failed to deliver.

If you buy a house and then you find out it has no floor, haven't the sellers screw you? Is it not fraud? Why then can game publishers sell you an incomplete game and it's OK?

Of course, houses are different because you can actually see it all before buying, but with games you can't because "piracy" is illegal and immoral and God kills a kitten for every copied byte.

Re:Change your attitude first (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194626)

Think of it as $25 worth of game, and $25 worth of valuable life lessons. You might as well say "I pay for the food and the roof over her head, why isn't the frigid bitch putting out more?" Life is a series of lessons in why you should never pay up front in anticipation of rewards later.

There Is a Chance (4, Insightful)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34193992)

Don't pay for the shit DLC, and Supply and Demand economics will take care of the problem.

Re:There Is a Chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194090)

Unfortunately most of the customers are idiots and will buy everything.

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194134)

These so called morons are also selfish, and will eventually look for better value from their limited amount money.

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194638)

not when you stamp the box with "halo", then even the small remainder of reason and value-awareness goes out the door.

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194756)

Which doesn't work because they're also ignorant and hence unable to correctly assess the offer that will bring the best value for their money.

Re:There Is a Chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194100)

Don't pay for the shit DLC, and Supply and Demand economics will take care of the problem.

It costs basically nothing to offer DLC, and there's always going to be people buying (particularly kids).
So if 50% of people buy the DLC it's an awesome deal for the companies making it.
If only 5% of people buy the DLC then it's just a good deal for the companies making it.

To have any effect, you'd have to convince a large portion of the gaming community to boycott the core games that DLC is attached to.

Re:There Is a Chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194112)

except that quite a lot of DLC has gamerscore attached to it, and plenty of people have shown they will purchase totally shit games just for the easy GS...

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194114)

There's still sort of a problem with that. In games like MW2 if you don't buy the DLC you get kicked from half the matchmaking games which is annoying.

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194596)

Speaking of which, I absolutely refuse to buy COD multiplayer maps as "DLC" on principle.

This was something the community used to create, with the tools provided with the games. Some of the best COD/COD2/COD4/CodWaW maps were made by enthusiasts. Since they took that all away in the name of greed, I'm certainly not going to reward them for it.

I do buy DLC for my games, but only if it's worthwhile. Extra missions, more game play... not just bling like costumes, vehicles or different guns that aren't even that advantageous.

Re:There Is a Chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194122)

But how would you know what is and isn't bad until you try it?

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194764)

how do you know that it is a shitty DLC? it not like your in the town market and you have the opportunity to see and some times sample the merchandise. You can't just say after 5 minutes of playing hey don't like the product, I want a refund. Usually there are reviews but sometimes what the reviews say and what you actually see are totally different things.

Re:There Is a Chance (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194772)

sorry, but an other thing to add.
sometimes you don;t get a choice ... if you want to continue playing the game(a very good game you invested a lot of time and efforts in) with your friends you have to buy the DLC.

Re:There Is a Chance (2, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194860)

Or they could not buy the DLC?

These map packs work on peer pressure. Someone buys it, and pressures their friends to buy it too in order to keep playing. But that also works in reverse. If people start telling their friends "that's a waste of money and I won't buy it", they now have pressure to not use it in order to play with you.

It's kind of sad how many customers think they're powerless. We're the ones with the money. We have ALL the power in this equation. If we used it intelligently instead of like a bunch of crack addicited morons, the publishers would be begging for mercy.

I do not see the difference ... (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194014)

... to poorly done content bought on some kind of media. It's always wise to give something a look before buying it, regardless of it being virtual or "real" goods. Unfinished or badly done software has been sold since software is being sold. The only chance to fix this, is that people stop buying such shit.

Re:I do not see the difference ... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194040)

Yes, the way to stop bad DLC is the same way to stop bad regular games: read a damn review before you decide to buy.

Re:I do not see the difference ... (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194092)

Taking into account all those faked and/or incompetent reviews: you'd better read more than one. Or get first hand information from a source that you know you can trust.

Re:I do not see the difference ... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194634)

I rarely trust commercial reviews. I do trust user reviews, but then too I want to read more than one. A single review doesn't mean much.

Re:I do not see the difference ... (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194784)

As I said in a previous post how do you know that before buying it. And software is not refundable in my experience. so you buy you don't like you're screwed.

Re:I do not see the difference ... (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194858)

Wait for a demo. Wait for 2 weeks and see how many forums light up with suckers who bought on day 1 complaining about how broken it is.

There's no reason why you have to buy the game on day 1. It'll still be on the shelf in two weeks.

"Not refundable" is a great reason to exercise some bloody self-restraint.

Let's Be Honest (4, Insightful)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194030)

I get the feeling someone is on the war path with video games lately. At least regarding the story trend and I'm not saying I disagree... just saying.

In any event, the issue isn't even as specific as DLC. Sure, there are plenty of awful examples and I would very much like to point the finger at Halo. Whole sections of multi-player simply disappear if you do not purchase the down-loadable map packs. This isn't even close to misrepresentation, but more like bandits along the highway. At some point, someone thought it would be a really good idea to cripple your current style of play unless you pay a few dollars. I believe someone's soul is headed toward damnation for that one.

Ignoring fire and brimstone, let's get back to the broader and real issue at hand. Bad game or bad content for purchase are not really the issues either. The fact is if we had more honest reviews floating around this would be a no brainer. The truth is we as gamers have been sold out countless times by these fan fiction writers who like to pretend they are writing a game review. In my personal experience, Red Dead Redemption was pretty much the worst multiplayer experience I have had in a while. It however managed to have a lot of good reviews. A more recent example of abuse of a good name is COD Black Ops. This is a good example of how to take something that wasn't terribly and just twist it into a hellish house of mirrors reflecting on a shadow of it's former self.

Having been in the broadcast world for a good while in the past there are important lessons I did learn there. What I happen to like or dislike may not necessarily be in tune with the populace at large. However, I would like to point out that the current early trend with user reviews seem to favor my opinion http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-black-ops?rating_login=1 [metacritic.com].

I believe what has happened with both retail games and addon pay content is something very simple. It appears to be much easier to simply spend oodles on marketing and advertising rather then produce something original. (Well, original is probably a bad term... how about enjoyable). It cannot be argued these triple a titles have a fairly large budget, but in my horrid and unimportant opinion is that publishers have gone the McDonalds route. Seriously, how else would you sale poison the the people of our great nation.

Re:Let's Be Honest (1)

Squapper (787068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194206)

It appears to be much easier to simply spend oodles on marketing and advertising rather then produce something original.

Blame it on the market, history tells us that good games and games that get good reviews does not necessarily sell. Well advertised and hyped games, however, DO sell.

The only good DLC I've seen (2)

Netshroud (1856624) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194034)

Is Valve's DLC. Great additions to Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2 and Team Fortress 2, without costing the gamer a cent.

Re:The only good DLC I've seen (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194120)

I highly agree, except I won't say it's the "only" good DLC. Despite costing money, I've really enjoyed the Borderlands DLC. Great side stories with great humor, some good game enhancements, and most importantly MORE GUNS! :D

They are largely moot now, as buying the GOTY edition gets you all of the DLC... but they do seem to be guilty of making you actually download the DLC rather than having on the physical disc when you buy retail. This doesn't affect me as I bought the game and its DLCs previously, on Steam.

But, yes, Valve with L4D(2) and TF2 are a fine example of great DLC systems. :D

Re:The only good DLC I've seen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194218)

And I completely disagree. I enjoyed the hell out of tf2 when it first came out, but where its at now just expanded on all the things I hated most about tf2. I quit a long time ago (around the scout patch), but now that theyre selling items that give you an advantage I wish I could re-quit.

Valves DLC is annoying in the way modded servers in CS were annoying - Some people were trying to have what they felt was fun, but instead a bunch of random people are forced to play that way or leave. But at least in CS, you could just hop in to another server and play the real game.

I wish Valve would have just made all of these additions some kind of server mod instead of global unlockables. I know you can mod the server to remove them, but thats so rare and just an annoying way to do it.

Re:The only good DLC I've seen (1, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194390)

I wouldn't say L4D had DLC. It had the rest of the game that should have been there at launch, and which those of us who pre-ordered were told would be there eventually. That's not DLC, it's "whoops, we very obviously sold you 2/3 of a game at full price, so here's a patch to enable shit that was already in it but didn't work quite right so we couldn't enable it at launch, and here's a very tiny kind of crappy campaign we had the intern toss together to make up for your not having the entire game you paid for until a couple months after it was released".

We were also told there would be all kinds of extras released for free over time, like those for TF2--that part never happened, and the map editor was delayed for months, seemingly to prevent L4D from becoming too entrenched and/or preventing modders from cloning too many of L4D2's announced features (many of which were promised as free patches for L4D--go figure) so that the sequel wouldn't flop.

It was either a dick move on Valve's part, or utterly incompetent management of the L4D project. Either way, though I still like them better than most game dev companies, I won't be buying any future Valve multiplayer games until they've been out for a while and I'm sure they're going to support it as they promised and not cut its feet out from under it by announcing a sequel 6 months after its release, to hit shelves a year after its release.

Good and bad (1)

ZildjianKX (872002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194054)

There is a whole range of DLC. Some of it really needs to die. GREAT: Wipeout HD Fury: Doubled the length of the game and added new multiplayer modes for $10. TERRIBLE: Oblivion horse armor. Assassin's Creed 2 sequences that were clearly cut from the game due to time restraints. All overpriced map packs. I really wish people would stop buying this crap so companies would stop making it. While we're talking about DLC, I wish retailer exclusive DLC for pre-ordering would go away.

Just wait for the GOTY. (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194124)

I bought Fallout 3 when it first came out. Had a blast, but was occupied at the time and didn't buy the DLC. In the intrim the GOTY edition came out, with all the DLC, for $50. Only problem is, the DLC hasn't dropped in price -- and there is $50 of it. Now I can either buy $50 of DLC, or $50 for the GOTY edition. Either way they want me to spend $100 on the game, and I can't justify that. Something is wrong here!

Now I just wait for the GOTY edition to come out.

Thumbs up for Valve (2, Funny)

Durzel (137902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194142)

Valve have the right idea, they don't charge for DLC as they realise that increased exposure and limited-time discounts on the full game actually make them money. You wouldn't catch Valve doing anything depressingly contrived as offering little virtual trinkets for real cash....

Re:Thumbs up for Valve (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194180)

Best, post, evah :)

But in all honesty, they don't require you to buy the trinkets, they can still drop, but buying them is a way for people with some spare cash to have some fun quicker.

Re:Thumbs up for Valve (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194748)

Yes, and artificially creates an unbalanced community divide of those who are rich and those who are poor.
And yes, it does make a difference.
"Fun quicker" comes at the expense of others who have put the effort in to actually gaining the items through playing.
They should have made a split in the servers, those who wish to use the MannCo Store system, and those who wish to let the "Drop system" do its thing instead. (Obviously they could have came up with better names than the ones i mentioned)
Both should have been independent of each other, 2 separate sub-profiles.

The MannCo update was the worst update in the whole of Steam history. Lost a whole bunch of respect for them that day.
It opens up a gateway to more devs possibly trying this sort of thing.

Re:Thumbs up for Valve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194186)

For those who missed the sarcasm... Team Fortress 2 recently opened a cash shop for in game items.

Re:Thumbs up for Valve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194696)

That's what they want you to think, when in fact *all* their games are essentially DLC now.

Generalize much? (0, Flamebait)

Squeeself (729802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194146)

Please do one of the following:
  1. 1) Name a AAA title that has released on-disk content as a DLC after release that has negatively impacted the game without purchasing the DLC. If content wasn't missed, how can you say the game "incomplete?"
  2. 2) Name an overpriced DLC you were required to purchase in order to enjoy a game. If it's too expensive, don't buy. If it's worth it to you, buy it.
  3. 3) Again, name a DLC that is a remake of other content that was required to purchase to enjoy the game. Same thing as above.

Now, if games start having their primary content locked unless you pay for additional DLCs, sure, there's a huge problem. But these other problems? Stop whining. Games are a product with really, really big teams that work long hours to get a game in your hands. Game devs want nothing more than to deliver bigger, better games to you, and DLCs allow them to jumpstart additional content easily, and to respond to market demand efficiently. In addition, game devs can deliver content that was not entirely ready at ship, which would otherwise be cut. Everybody wins with DLCs...unless you demand all that work for free or want less game content overall. You're getting more options in choosing how much you pay for your game content...In any other industry but gaming, consumers would be rejoicing. (And no, it's not some scheme to milk out more money than in the past...There is just literally more work going into making modern games than there was even just a couple years ago, and the trend keeps going up. DLC allows some of the breadth of that content--like, say, additional, optional maps--to be in the game without breaking the bank, period.)

Re:Generalize much? (2, Insightful)

moriya (195881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194290)

I can't effectively counter the points you made with regards to what title has done this or that. But I'd like to point out a current example of something similar. It isn't exactly as described. But it is somewhere along that route.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was released earlier in the year and practically on Day 1, there was a "map pack" released. If you were to remove the PC platform from the equation, you could say that this is akin to point #1 to 2nd-hand buyers of the game. Those who purchase BC2 as a used product would not be able to get this map pack, along with 5 others (soon to be 6) released. As a result, a player who do want to play on these maps would have to cough up cash in order to get a feel for it. Even worse so is that there is no way to really try it out to see if it is worth the price.

As for point #3, DICE is now notorious for this. Their VIP Map Packs 2 through 6 are largely the same, and contains virtually everything that was already seen in-game and was on the game disc. However, they were largely either locked or needed a few additional files in order to fill in the spaces. The community for BC2 has since then coined the term "Mode Packs" as the maps are the same but only its layout are different. It is akin to remaking other content, when these content should have been either finished or released since Day 1.

I have played the game on the PC end for many months. It is irritating at times that these so-called "new maps" are nothing more than the same thing but just in a different mode. Many of the players in the BC2 community also feel the same as well. We do want new maps but the same maps designed and played differently isn't our definition of "new."

You say that games are products w/ big teams. I've no issue with that. A game being worked on by a large development team will definitely be working hard to make it as good as possible. However, the growing issue at hand is the lack of content being shipped with the game. More and more games are becoming less complete or less fulfilling because they lack the content that long-time gamers have wanted. PC players are becoming more left out because of how games are being designed today due to the overwhelming market of the console platform. And with DLC, the developers and the publishers are using that option to rake in as much cash as possible in order to keep players playing their games.

I personally do not mind DLC as a whole, as long as the game itself is fulfilling, enjoyable, and has plenty of things to do in it. But this is not the case any more. DLC is stifling the modding community and the PC players are getting shafted and ignored. The devs and publishers are too narrow-minded to focus on anything else.

Re:Generalize much? (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194724)

to give an example of earlier shenanigans from DICE:

Battlefield 2 had several expansions, two of which were only available as DLC. My experience is with the first, non-dlc one (special forces). People who bought the SF expansion could use new weapons, unlocked in the expansion in the normal game on non-expansion maps. One effect of this was, that i, as a sniper, was continiously outclassed by people with the slightly better sniper-rifle they got in the expansion. In the end i bought the expansion, mainly just to level the playing field. (i did end up enjoying one of the maps in the expansion) Essentially, i gave in to the blackmailing.

DLC can break the balance very badly in multiplayer games, forcing people to choose:
- abandon the game alltogether
- pay up for the DLC to get back on equal footing with your peers
- shut up and take the assraping in every single round because your gear is slightly inferior

Maps for Uncharted 2 were not $9.99 a piece (2, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194162)

Nor were skins.

The first DLC map was free.
The next two maps were $3.99 for the pair.
The next two maps were in a $9.99 pack with an additional co-op game mode and six skins.

There were two skins packs, each was $6 (IIRC, I didn't buy either of them).
There was also a motion comic pack which came with two skins.

Re:Maps for Uncharted 2 were not $9.99 a piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194226)

I'm one cheap bastard, and I have to say that the ONLY DLC I've ever bought after 25+ years of gaming were the extra maps in UC2. I think I paid a total of $6 for maybe 3 new maps + one gameplay type and it was totally worth it. It was relatively cheap and added some value.

That said-- I wouldn't waste any $ on skins or anything, but maybe someone else would think they were worthwhile...

If they trickled out a whole game this way, I would be pissed. As an add-on to the full, rich game-on-BD, it was worth it.

DLC just sucks.... (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194198)

Im a sucker for fighting games, but i'd guess that First Person Shooters are in the same boat. Adding extra characters or maps to a game just doesnt do it justice.

The only game i bought DLC for was WWE SmackDown vs. RAW 2010(?) The pack included a few new wrestlers that were on the current roster but arrived after the cutoff date.There were a few alternate costumes as well. This was sort of a double-edged sword. The developers obviously have to make a cut-off date for when they stop adding content(characters and stories) and the wrestling product is constantly growing and changing. Anyone who has played this game(or its other releases) knows that the character creation mode is quite extensive. With a bit of creativity you can make a character look like anyone and design any moveset you want(lets face it all pro wrestlers use the same strikes and throws.) Is it deliberate that they left these characters out? Probably not. Does the added content significantly change the game to make it anymore interesting? Not so much

I bought the content with an expiring cash card that had just enough for the purchase, so no big loss.

I'd have to think that FPS games are in a similar boat. Once you play the game enough that you could do it on autopilot(been there) does that new map really matter?

I do believe the developers could add more in the way of objectives to a game. Should they hold out on missions from the main story arc? No. It would make sense if they decided to add new side missions though. This would work especially well for sandbox games. In my example above, they could add a few of the more current stories from the wrestling product.

A gamers worst nightmare? (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194280)

Seriously?

Wasting a couple of dollars? Getting knifed IRL by the n00b you've humiliated online, now that's a nightmare.

Re:A gamers worst nightmare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194838)

Came here to say this. Hyperbole is a Slashdot reader's worst nightmare.

DLC = price discrimination (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194292)

Price discrimination is an economics term that means charging different prices to different customers of your product. In real-world situations, you have to vary the product a bit in order to actually carry out such a practice effectively; DLC is one way of introducing such variations.
Freemium websites are another example, close-up versus further-back seats at sporting events and concerts provide another example. Scholarships given by the university itself are another example.

Why do this? Get sales from cheap customers who would otherwise ignore the product, while still being able to collect from the big spenders.

OMG corpra$hunZOneOneEleventyOne (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194478)

Where a publisher stands to make some money, gamers get screwed.

Yes, all of us round here know that it's completely impossible to produce something that's good AND commercially successful.

Simultaneous release of Game & DLC (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194496)

It seems to me that the most obnoxious, in-your-face form of screwing customers up is when a game is released at the same time (or very close to) the first DLC pack. That's pretty much a statement of "We could have it in the game but we we're charging extra for it instead". In fact, given the track record of the major Game Publishers I suspect that the first DLC pack is in fact content that was purposefully removed from the main release for selling later for extra.

More in general the evilness (or not) of DLC should be determined by looking at two things:

  1. Would what is being released as DLC come in as part of a normal (free) update in the past
  2. Is having the DLC pack required to actually play the game? For example a pack that ties-in and completes unfinished plot/quest-lines in an RPG or a competitiveness increasing pack in an online FPS/RTS

If a DLC pack is essentially a set of bug-fixes, the finishing content for the base-game that should've been part of the main release or tilts the competive space on an online game, then it's Evil DLC and gamers should punish the publisher for that by blacklisting their products.

The same thing also applies to game expansions - even before DLC, some game publishers already screwed customers by releasing game expansions which did all those things described above. Sony Entertainment for example completelly turned me off of buying any Sony product when they released a "game expansion" for Battlefield 2 which was required to fix bugs in the base game and tilted the competitive playing field in favour of those with the expansion (in an Online FPS it added more powerfull weapons for those with the expansion).

Personally I vote with me wallet and will not buy any game with DLC. Maybe I'm missing the one or two games where DLC actually adds real value above that which would've never been added under the normal post-release update cycle but I don't have the time and the patience to find the possible one or two jewels in a pile of broken glass.

Mandatory DLCs (2, Interesting)

TechBCEternity (561141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194512)

With Modern Warfare 2 it gets worse,

you need the DLCs or you won't get matched into a multiplayer game or when you do you get kicked out after a couple levels

Mods! (1)

thyrial (1429239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194518)

DLC! , like mods , only you have to pay for them! One of the things I hate about modern consoles is how they turned the idea of mods and add-dons or games with fun extra content (like the tons of unlockables you used to get in Namco fighting/racing games) into a way of squeezing more money out of gamers. I think a lot of the reason publishers are abandoning the PC is that PC gamers are used to getting this stuff for free (or making it for others and distributing it for free)and it's a lot harder to sell the idea of DLC to them. Still ,thank God Valve are still invested in PC games , at least for now(TF2 and LFD have gotten a shedload of free content since release)...

My Real Problem With DLC is that it drives DRM! (1)

avatar139 (918375) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194526)

Not to mention driving the industry in general off a cliff, by giving credence to the concept that products that I can still buy physically in a store are actually services that I can only legally use at the publisher's discretion!

I gave them what they wanted. (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194558)

And now all my software is DLC. (But I did buy every single carpack for forza 3 lol)

Is there a chance to fix this system (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194566)

Is there a chance to fix this system?

Yes. Stop buying that stuff. Amazing how that simple answer is so often overlooked.

Civilization V DLC (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194600)

I feel that $5 for Babylonia was too much. But it pales in comparison to $50 for a game that continuously crashes in the latter stages of the game.

(This demonstrates the sheer vicious genius of the Firaxis product managers, who decided to release a demo limited to 100 turns - way before the crashes start.)

Don't want it? DON'T BUY IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34194628)

And stop being a whiny little kid.
Also, add slashvertisement to tags, probably some other random person linking to their random blog ranting on about "bad DLC ooo evil companies wanting to make money"

Also, try to get your facts straight for the next rant, some were terribly wrong. (Uncharted 2 very much so)
There is nothing wrong with the DLC system, just a FEW developers who do abuse it.

You can't use the "on a budget" line with gaming! Gaming is a HOBBY, not a necessity! DLC certainly isn't a necessity, it is called EXTRAS for a reason!
Gaming is, and always HAS been an EXPENSIVE hobby. Hell, gaming is cheaper now than it has been for a while. Games used to cost significantly more than this at one point.

Why am i even replying to this? Such a waste of bytes on both ends.

My answer to all DLC is simply patience (3, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194834)

I just wait a year or so for the Gold/Ultimate/GOTY edition of a game which comes with all addons and DLC built-in for £20 or less. Money saved, disaster averted.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...